If youve had a enough of the sex abuse scandal please dont go to the link below, I though it was a good bit of writing. Thoughts?

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher.shtml

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 28, 2002

Answers

Is this just a desperate attempt by conservatives to shift the blame to someone other than themselves- "this isnt the real Catholic Church, its those pretend Catholic liberals?" Does this problem have deeper roots than the 60's sexual revolution, what is the history of the problem of sexual predatory of the Priesthood through the ages. Has the sexual revoultion just ment that we can now talk openly about this and hopefully limit the problem? Is the sexual revolution actually a blessing for the Church?

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 28, 2002.

Hi Courtenay:

We do live a much more open society now making it very difficult to hide things, with the Internet and communication with all parts of the world so easy, talk shows, etc.

But the problem is really simple -- tolerance of gross sin, by "some" men (really just a few) in the hierarchy. The Bible equates sin with 'yeast' -- "Yeast leavens the whole lump" In other words, like yeast, it permeates quickly throughout the whole body. It must be cut off so as not to spread and infect the whole body. And what we're witnessing is an inadequacy to quickly and decisively excise the yeast -- sin!

Plus, the 'bad' bishops in question (for the most part) are known to be liberal in their theology, so naturally their actions would bear out their convictions (or lack thereof). I would point out too that most of these cases are concentrated in very 'politically liberal' areas as well! So is there a connection? You get what you vote for!

Boston Los Angeles Chicago New York Milwaukee

Democratic hotbeads. Boston is HUGELY Democratic. They vote for abortion, homosexuality, etc. by voting for Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank (a known active homosexual) And I believe Massachusetts is hugely Catholic as well. So why are the Catholics in Mass. voting for some of the most pro-abortion, homosexual congressmen in the US? Could it be their faith does not penetrate their hearts -- they obviously aren't following the teachings of the Church if they are voting for these fellows.

Same goes for the rest of the cities I mentioned here.

Food for thought!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), May 28, 2002.

Thanks Gail

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 28, 2002.

In today's Portland Press Herald
Allegations have been made against 51 priests who no longer are active, including 18 who are dead.

Of the 33 living but inactive priests, 25 were part of the Diocese of Portland and under the supervision of Bishop Joseph Gerry and his predecessors. Eight were members of religious orders, such as the Jesuits or Christian Brothers.

There are 209 retired, inactive or former priests from the diocese. That means nearly one in eight has been accused of sexual misconduct with children.

Full text here http://www.portland.com/news/local/020529priests.shtml

Just allegations surely but folks are getting knocked back as this process reveals itself. It ain't just Boston and it ain't just liberals. This is a big deal for this quiet little state.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 29, 2002.

Chris writes:

"It ain't just Boston and it ain't just liberals."

Actually, every individual accused priest that I've read about has been hostile toward Catholic teachings. Pro-Homosexual, pro-women's ordination, etc, etc. It's an interesting phenomena.

Of course, liberals aren't confined to Boston...

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 29, 2002.

Chris, Both your senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, are pro- abortion, even supporting partial birth abortion. How can you say your state is conservative? These women are also at least borderline pro-homosexual as well! As a side note, Catholics have a majority in the Senate and yet they repeatedly slam any ban on partial birth abortion, which is so abhorrent, you have to have NO CONSCIENCE to support such a procedure -- NO CONSCIENCE!!

Olympia Snowe on Abortion

Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities. Bill S 2549 ; vote number 2000-134 on Jun 20, 2000

Voted YES on allowing partial birth abortions. This legislation, if enacted, would ban the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. Status: Bill Passed Y)63; N)34; NV)3 Reference: Partial Birth Abortion Ban; Bill S. 1692 ; vote number 1999-340 on Oct 21, 1999

Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. The Murray amdt would have repealed current laws prohibiting overseas U.S. military hospitals and medical facilities from performing privately funded abortions for U.S. service members and their dependents. Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)51; N)49 Reference: Motion to table Murray Amdt #397; Bill S. 1059 ; vote number 1999-148 on May 26, 1999

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), May 29, 2002.

"How can you say your state is conservative?" Gail
Did I? So, let's just say that the State of Maine is the most liberal state in the union and has been since the first priest offended a child. Does that help you to justify this crisis? I hope it does. But be sure that would not be as comforting to some others.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 29, 2002.

Chris,

Nothing justifies what has happened, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! My point is that our culture is embracing gross immmorality. ABORTION BEING THE PERFECT CASE IN POINT! The people that we vote into office represent OUR values. If you live in a state whose representatives and congressmen are PRO-abortion, PRO-homosexual, it is because the majority of the people in that state have those values.

We want to have free sex and lots of it. Someone has to pay for that freedom. Nothing is free. EVERYTHING has a price tag. Children are the payment -- they forfeit their lives by the millions in this country so that mom can continue to have fun and not be bothered with the nuisance of a child. 98% of abortions are done for the purpose of birth control -- it's convenient!

We WANT to let homosexuals indoctrinate our children in schools. We WANT them to have our children in the Boyscouts. We WANT to let homosexuals have their play-days at Disney. We WANT homosexuals to have all the freedom they desire, to work in any vocation they wish. But, oh, we expect them to be able to control their passions around teenage boys! Obviously, they CANNOT!

The price is BIG, BUT our culture is willing to pay the price -- the children!

You cannot embrace a snake and not expect to be bit. You cannot embrace gross immorality and not embrace the consequences.

What is happening in the Church is only the tip of the iceburg. Our culture, our COUNTRY is just beginning to pay the price. We will reap what we sow, and we are reaping the whirlwind! Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), May 29, 2002.

Well Gail,
Lots of random we's, and our's and you's and they's getting thrown around there.
I agree that we live in dangerous times but I don't get as excited as I once did.
When I look at this Church issue I find that there are solutions. Here in Maine, there are no active priests who have credible accusations made against them and actions are being taken to resolve current resonance and I've got faith that steps will be taken so there will be no more offenses. Phew! There's one down, almost.
But the rest that you mention would bring on some pretty strong feelings and pessimism. My solutions are closer to home. And the solutions are all about service. By that I mean, service that I can perform to my family, my friend's, to folks I don't know, to the community that I know that I can have some impact on.
Tip O'Neil, a grand liberal from Massachusettes, said that "All politics is local." There is a lot to be said for that very simple statement.
When I get thinking of our spineless senators I get nuts and feel absolutely powerless but when I get involved with a campaign that fits I get feeling much better.
So, be careful when you sling those pronouns about. There are some of us who would not identify with that hopelessness.
Love, Chris

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 29, 2002.

Hi Chris:

You make some good points, and I did purposefully use the words 'we,' 'us', etc., so as to illustrate one point; "We all sin and fall short of the glory of God." We all need God's grace, for sure. I'm a sinner, you're a sinner, we are all sinners in need of God's great and abundant grace. We do need to concentrate on our own little worlds, and who God places in our paths. But as you can see our little worlds are shrinking, and will not go uneffected by the world around us. We don't live in isolation.

Maybe I am being too pessimistic, but then again, maybe I'm being realistic. Maybe we (the church) need to WAKE UP. Maybe we need to look at the big picture, and see the VERY real consequences of sin in our world. Maybe if we do, we will repent, get back to the Bible, back to God, be salt and light to a dying generation. Does that mean we go around thumping people on the head with Bibles? No. It means we love people with the truth of the gospel!

If this scandal accomplishes anything, perhaps it will be that the wake-up call will be heeded. I hope so! Can the church be the City on a Hill shining bright? You bet, but it will be through sackcloth and ashes, my friend -- repentance, love and fidelity to God's word and the Church's teachings -- TRUE holiness, and not feigned holiness.

That is my hope, Chris. I just don't think that's possible, though, unless we get a divine revelation on the consequences of sin. In fact, there cannot be true repentance without it.

God Bless you, Chris.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), May 29, 2002.

Gail-- You got a SLAM DUNK that time!

Yes-- Our society is more to blame than a few score of perpetrators reveals. If this is something with its own common denominator, how is our Church the most usual suspect? Burn down every Catholic Church in the U.S. They are the problem.

Chris Coose said once we are part of the problem; for not seeing our Church's corruption. If it were possible to weed out all the pederasts in our Church, we should be able to see those out in society as well. Otherwise, we're part of the problem. We are part of the problem for the plague of pornography; especially on the Internet. For drug addiction and the morning after abortion pill, too. But if we sue all the bishops and imprison all the priests, we'd no longer be part of the problem. --Whatever becomes of the innocent priests, they should have seen the corruption too; so let them go hang. We don't have any obligation to protect innocent priests. We can't even protect an unborn baby, for Pete's sakes. From its own mother and the U.S. government.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 29, 2002.

"Chris Coose said once we are part of the problem; for not seeing our Church's corruption."
That would still be true.

"If it were possible to weed out all the pederasts in our Church, we should be able to see those out in society as well."
Since that has just about been accomplished in short order, it is sure that there are some Catholic Church folks who have learned much about weeding and they may become new leaders of identifying and cleaning out other gardens.

"We are part of the problem for the plague of pornography; especially on the Internet. For drug addiction and the morning after abortion pill, too. But if we sue all the bishops and imprison all the priests, we'd no longer be part of the problem."
??????? Logic????

"--Whatever becomes of the innocent priests, they should have seen the corruption too; so let them go hang."
Maybe this belongs over on the new CP thread???

"We don't have any obligation to protect innocent priests."
You are a law abiding guy. Do you need any special protection?

"We can't even protect an unborn baby, for Pete's sakes. From its own mother and the U.S. government."
What's this "we" stuff?

Classic Eugene.


-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 29, 2002.

Thank you, Coose. It'll sink in; take it in little doses. Stay tuned Great posts, Gail!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 29, 2002.

Eugene,
Is this "Coose" thing a term of endearment? If not, would you please refer to me as Chris.
Respectfully, Chris

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 29, 2002.

I agree with Gene, Gail.
Your posts are tremendous -- totally correct. Please don't water them down, especially under pressure from someone who would refer to the corrupt pro-abort, Thomas O'Neill, as a "grand liberal."
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 29, 2002.

Yes Gail,
I agree with Gene and JFG. Good job!

Especially the courage to stick with the points of the message and refrain from attacking the messenger. It does make for far more civil dialog. Much fresher than what I get from the usual suspects.
Love, Chris

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@aol.com), May 30, 2002.

Dear CC--Is that a better greeting?

I thought Coose was your name. You can refer to me familiarly as ''chavez'', and I won't kick.

This is what you call the ''message'' we should stick to?---Chris Coose said once we are part of the problem; for not seeing our Church's corruption.

But we aren't part of it, Chris. We don't approve or tolerate any 'coruption''; because we have an INCORRUPT Church! If the Church were ever corrupt, I would leave her.

We are definitely ashamed and sick of the perverted men who have desacrated the Church and harmed (some) innocent children. But the immense majority of Catholic priests, brothers and nuns are NOT sinners of this kind. The sacraments aren't corrupted because a priest is evil, and our Church is not to blame for the devious actions of certain bishops. This is basic. If we argue the insubstantial nature of your accusations, that isn't ''killing the messenger''. At very worst, it's a difference of opinion. At best, it's the legitmate and faithful support which the excellence of a majority of clergy deserves from the people. You seem to ask, ''Why aren't all you RATS deserting the sinking ship?'', like the imbecile Molson does! Come ON! Be intellectually straight. Anybody can deliver a cheap shot, Chris!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 30, 2002.

Eugene,

A few posts up I wrote to Gail,

"When I look at this Church issue I find that there are solutions. Here in Maine, there are no active priests who have credible accusations made against them and actions are being taken to resolve current resonance and I've got faith that steps will be taken so there will be no more offenses."

Now does that really sound like a D.Molson call for the rats?

This is lifted from a Portland Press Herald piece today

" About 70 people attended the meeting, which came a day after prosecutors revealed that 33 living but inactive priests and other clergy members are the subject of child sex abuse allegations.

Within that group, 25 were priests under the direct supervision of the bishop of Portland. They represent 12 percent - nearly one in eight - of the 209 living diocesan priests who have retired, left the priesthood for personal reasons or been forcibly removed from active ministry.

National statistics show that child molesters make up between 2 percent and 5 percent of the population. So even if many of the charges against Maine priests are unfounded, the new information indicates there is a bigger problem within the church than was previously believed by many Catholics.

If a school system had a similar concentration of people suspected of child abuse, the public would be outraged, said Michael Sweatt, an organizer of the group and a victim of abuse by former Cheverus (Catholic) High School track coach Charles Malia."

This business would indicate a Church problem, to me anyways. Perhaps not corrupt but it is a problem and it ain't going away on it's own. So far the Church has needed a little help from it's friends to get it sorted out right. I don't see this as a cheap shot. It is information that fits this thread for sure.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 30, 2002.

Why would anyone disagree the problems are grave? And that we all share a responsibility to address them?

But in the past you've indeed singled me out; as an enabler who wouldn't face what's happening, who had the habit of attacking the messenger instead of the message. We see the atheist doing it to me every day, calling me the ''protector'' of unholy priests-- Only because I stand up for the Church as a divine institution, and insist on having complete faith in Christ to help us over these present scandals.

It's very easy to be aloof and point the finger of blame. I intend to defend our Church. No matter what the others think. It's made me unpopular with many of these holier-than-thous, and I'm not complaining. But you've seemed from a long way back to have a conscience-- and to know the difference between right and wrong. Yet, you take issue with me when I say,

''Our society is more to blame than a few score of perpetrators reveals. If this is something with its own common denominator, how is our Church the only usual suspect? Burn down every Catholic Church in the U.S. then!''

I was in accord with Gail's statements; but you come back to single out our Church AGAIN. As if this were all that made pedophilia detestable. Just the priests.

There are many others falling into hell for this aberration, Chris. When Catholics like me try to see it all in some perspective, why would you picture this as denial? I could understand this, coming from a bigot like DM; but from you?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 30, 2002.

I remember as a child, I'd want to go do something idiotic. I'd ask for permission and mom would return something about "jumping off of the bridge". This business here reminds me something of the principle that mom was trying to get across.
There is a lot of finger pointing going on from this forum. Lots of blame on the media, killing of the messengers, blame society, blame the liberals, blame the parents, even blame the victims.
Of course there has also been plenty of blame stacked up on the perps and a recognition of the good priests who suffer, some on the men in charge.
My point is already stated. As long as you are blaming and fingerpointing you are remaining in the problem. What good will blaming the media do? What good is blaming the parents? None, I say. It is likely that when I see blame being placed in areas where no solution exists I'll be mentioning it.
Surely, trying to stuff this thing back into the closet by using old methods to deal with it would be remaining in the problem. I'll likely speak up when I see this kind of ignoring being supported, as I have been known to do.


-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 31, 2002.

Chris,

This is sensible:

''Trying to stuff this thing back into the closet by using old methods to deal with it would be remaining in the problem.''

I'm in your camp, as this statement addresses the scandal. I've never posited any reason or wish to hide these scandals! If I assume rightly, you say ''old methods'' because cowardly bishops did not do their duty as Christ's shepherds.

I merely came to the aid of our bishops out of a spirit of fair play. My very first posts were simply about due process of law. Of withdrawing -- Catholics-- from any feeding frenzies. Not of exonerating the guilty.

THAT is not ''remaining within the problem,'' Sir.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 31, 2002.